CANDICE JEAN SENCZYSZYN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over the appellant's sentence pursuant to section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes, because parole is no longer available to defendants sentenced under the guidelines.
Appellant pleaded guilty to battery on a law enforcement officer and was sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. The trial court retained jurisdict…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Parole cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant entered a plea of guilty to battery on a law enforcement officer. She was sentenced under the sentencing guidelines to five years imprisonment.
On appeal appellant raises three points. Her contention that the record fails to show that her selection to be sentenced under the guidelines was knowingly and intelligently made is rejected on the authority of Newsome v. State, 466 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Gage v. State, 461 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) [question certified]; Moore v. State, 455 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We also find that the reasons given by the court for departing from the guidelines were legally clear and convincing.
However, we agree with appellant that the court erred in retaining jurisdiction over her sentence pursuant to section 947.-16(3), Florida Statutes (1983). The purpose of the statute is to prohibit parole of a criminal defendant without the approval of the trial judge until after that defendant has served a specified portion of his sentence. Carter v. State, 464 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Williams v. State, 374 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Parole is no longer available to the appellant because she was sentenced pursuant to the guidelines. § 921.001(8), Fla.Stat. (1983). Thus, the court erred in retaining jurisdiction over appellant’s sentence. Carter v. State; Hawkins v. State, 463 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Accordingly, we strike the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction but affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence in all other respects.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beal v. State, 478 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…of the sentencing guidelines, the purpose of retaining jurisdiction was to prohibit parole of a criminal defendant without the approval of the trial judge until after the defendant had served a specified portion of his sentence. Senczyszyn v. State, 467 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Under the sentencing guidelines, however, parole is no longer available. § 921.001(8), Fla.Stat. (1983). Thus, the retention of jurisdiction over a guidelines sentence has no purpose and constitutes reversible error. Kennedy v. S…
-
Kennedy v. State, 490 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983); State v. Suarez, 485 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1986). Since the sentencing guidelines apply to this case, the court should not retain jurisdiction over the sentences under section 947.16(4), Florida Statutes (1985). Senczyszyn v. State, 467 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Appellant’s convictions are affirmed, but the case is remanded for resentencing. DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.…
-
Williams v. State, 592 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…a criminal defendant convicted of an enumerated offense without the prior approval of the trial judge, until after the defendant has served a specified part of his sentence. Williams v. State, 470 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Senczyszyn v. State, 467 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Williams v. State, 374 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Such retention of jurisdiction is exercised by the sentencing court in its generic sense, and is not personal to the judge who imposed sentence. The interpretation urged by a…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 455 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Carter v. State, 464 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Gage v. State, 461 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Williams v. State, 374 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Newsome v. State, 473 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Hawkins v. State, 463 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)